Angara-A5 turned out to be more expensive than Proton-M: they shared plans at Roskosmos

The latest Russian Angara-A5 heavy-class launch vehicle turned out to be three times more expensive than the Proton decommissioned launch vehicle. This follows from the financial report of the Khrunichev Center for 2019.

According to the document, the cost of one Angara-A5 is seven billion rubles, which is three times more than the cost of the Proton-M rocket, which Angara will replace in space launches. However, Roscosmos says that according to planned measures, including a closed production cycle, the cost of the Angara-A5 rocket can be reduced to 4 billion rubles. (The cost of manufacturing the Proton-M rocket, according to data from the government procurement website for April of this year, is 2,33 billion rubles)

As part of the consolidation of the “internal reserve”, the organization, with the involvement of the Roskosmos state corporation, implements the following measures: (...) ensuring the implementation of a set of measures to reduce the cost of the Angara launch vehicle (LV), including those aimed at creating a closed-loop production PH of the Angara family at the facilities of the Production Association Flight - a branch of the organization, the city of Omsk

- says the report.

As previously reported, the Angara launch vehicle will go into production from 2024, replacing the Proton-M. It is planned that the cost of a new rocket, taking into account all the innovations, will remain within the limits of one and a half costs of Proton-M. Serial production of the rocket is planned from 2023 at the production facilities of Omsk. The Proton-M launch vehicle is planned to be completely decommissioned by 2025.

Comments

[Mountain shooter]

For several decades, the launched rocket has been compared with the newly mastered one ... is it possible? Well, the "krantik" will be screwed. There are all kinds of appetites. Let them take in quantity ...

[Grazdanin]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

compares with the newly mastered ... but is it possible?

This newly mastered 25 years as.

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Grazdanin

This newly mastered 25 years as

Is it produced for 25 years, or is it being designed? There is a difference?

[Grazdanin]

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

[Bykov.]

Quote: Grazdanin

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

[Grazdanin]

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. Headquarters - in Hawthorne, California, USA. Founded in 2002
August 26 1995 of the year, a Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation was issued, which determined the stages of creating the Angara complex, approved a general schedule for the creation of the complex, the volumes of its financing, as well as cooperation of co-executors.

[Bykov.]

Quote: Grazdanin

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. Headquarters - in Hawthorne, California, USA. Founded in 2002

Yes, yes .... and having bought all the patents of the last century from NASA, at a symbolic price of one dollar, he blurs on them "know-how" - rockets.

[Grazdanin]

https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_частных_компаний_космической_отрасли

[doubovitski]

Quote: Bulls.

Quote: Grazdanin

Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) - an American company, a manufacturer of space technology. Headquarters - in Hawthorne, California, USA. Founded in 2002

Yes, yes .... and having bought all the patents of the last century from NASA, at a symbolic price of one dollar, he blurs on them "know-how" - rockets.

It is necessary to attach the following- I got at my disposal the rest of the materials from the closed lunar programs, the Marilyn engines from there, the design bureaus dispersed after the shuttles and lunars are closed, rents (does not build) launch complexes, receives subsidies from the budget, using legislation, demonopolizes everything and all. From receiving the post of adviser to Trump, which he received, did this crook not have anything? And finally. Close comrades are comparing launch prices. But they do not understand that some prices are the prices of the MONOPOLIST, and other prices are the prices of the DEBT, WORKING THE OLD DEBTS, and working in the conditions of fierce competition.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Bulls.

Quote: Grazdanin

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world

[doubovitski]

Quote: Vol4ara

Quote: Bulls.

Quote: Grazdanin

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world

Falcon engines flew to the moon. Everything else is iron. When did he launch people? And the USSR - in 1961.
The tablet is outdated slightly. Add on.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: doubovitski

Quote: Vol4ara

Quote: Bulls.

Quote: Grazdanin

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world

Falcon engines flew to the moon. Everything else is iron. When did he launch people? And the USSR - in 1961.
The tablet is outdated slightly. Add on.

You still bring me info when the metal for the case was melted, mb under the king?
Started in 2013, and launched in 2018, 5 years. And we have 25.

[Blackmokona]

Falcon engines flew to the moon.

Falcon-9 engines were developed by SpaceX Corporation and did not fly to any Moon.

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

Falcon engines flew to the moon.

Falcon-9 engines were developed by SpaceX Corporation and did not fly to any Moon.

It is clear that Falcon engines did not fly The engine flew using the same technology created.

You tell me what - how much is the production cost of the new Falcon? right there they say about the cost of the new Angara.

[Blackmokona]

What technology?
The cost of Falcon-9 is a trade secret. One can only judge by the launch price at which they sell. For example, one of the all-inclusive launches left NASA for $ 50 million.
(Just in case, the cost of production of the Angara is indicated here, and not the cost of launch. To this you will need to add the price of the accelerating block, fairing, maintenance of the spaceport, etc.)

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

What technology?

Weak to look into the English-language wiki?

Quote: BlackMokona

The cost of Falcon-9 is a trade secret.

Well, they don’t have such RIA news there that they know.

Quote: BlackMokona

One can only judge by the launch price at which they sell. For example, one of the all-inclusive launches left NASA for $ 50 million.

Start-up price - it is competitive and can be any. It does not depend on the cost of production. And something tells me that the cost of production of F9 is much higher than four billion rubles.

[Blackmokona]

1) So say it.
2) So it's not a secret that a trade secret
3) Depends if the company does not want to go broke.

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

1) So say it.

Quote: The injector at the heart of Merlin is of the pintle type that was first used in the Apollo Lunar Module landing engine (LMDE).

The rest around this technology was finished.

Quote: BlackMokona

2) So it's not a secret that a trade secret

Can you imagine how open our society is that it does not hide the cost of products, unlike .....

Quote: BlackMokona

3) Depends if the company does not want to go broke.

The Pentagon will not.

[Blackmokona]

1) It says that Marilyn uses the same type of needle in the pin nozzle as on the Lunar module. Nothing for a technologist. And also the kerosene on which the Falcon-9 flies is the same as on the rockets of that time. This is not an engine technology, it is the technology of one extremely small part on an engine. And that is not a fact that technology, since the type is not a copy.
2) Because we do not have a private company?
3) The Pentagon would drown SpaceX whenever possible, it actually has a favorite company for launching rockets into space. ULA is the union of Boeing and Lockheed of the Pentagon's best friends. And Mask spoils them all raspberries

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

1) It says that Marilyn uses the same type of needle in the pin nozzle as on the Lunar module. Nothing for a technologist.

like this

Quote: BlackMokona

And also the kerosene on which the Falcon-9 flies is the same as on the rockets of that time.

Wow, but they give out for novye.

Quote: BlackMokona

This is not an engine technology, it is the technology of one extremely small part on an engine. And that is not a fact that technology, since the type is not a copy.

Nice to deal with a specialist Especially so knowledgeable about engines.

Quote: BlackMokona

2) Because we do not have a private company?

Because we don’t lie like them.

Quote: BlackMokona

3) The Pentagon would drown SpaceX whenever possible, it actually has a favorite company for launching rockets into space. ULA is the union of Boeing and Lockheed of the Pentagon's best friends. And Mask spoils them all raspberries

Well then, let it not start its monopoly on Falcons Are you so naive or pretending to be?

[Blackmokona]

1) Even the USSR managed to move to this kerosene. So successful mixture turned out. Zenith also flew on the American RP-1.
2) Even as time, Rosskosmos called itself an unreliable source once I remember. Refuting his own statement, which by the way turned out to be true
Well, already plans and plans that are always on schedule and always fly away to the left
3) And Musk first sued the Pentagon actively, and then brought the now deceased McCain to start a torment over unpotriotic engines in Atlas missiles that produce ULA. And to get the engines again, ULA went to the world with Mask and the Pentagon certified Falcon-9 for military loads

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

1) Even the USSR managed to move to this kerosene. So successful mixture turned out. Zenith also flew on the American RP-1.

Because the Zen-omnivorous RD-171 engine. They controlled what SL was at hand with.

And so in general they used synthine and now we are switching to naphthyl.

Quote: BlackMokona

2) Even as time, Rosskosmos called itself an unreliable source once I remember. Refuting his own statement, which by the way turned out to be true
Well, already plans and plans that are always on schedule and always fly away to the left

Well, tell us in detail what you remember there. Plans are carried forward for objective reasons. What does this have to do with the cost of rockets?

Quote: BlackMokona

3) And Musk first sued the Pentagon actively, and then brought the now deceased McCain to start a torment over unpotriotic engines in Atlas missiles that produce ULA. And to get the engines again, ULA went to the world with Mask and the Pentagon certified Falcon-9 for military loads

How did this affect the high, compared to commercial, launch prices of the Pentagon?

[Blackmokona]

1) Sintin and Naphthyl for the Unions and they are the same age as RP-1 both.
2) A huge number of them, read about MLM. And direct, if here they lie continuously, then what is there to expect?
3) The fact that before the ULA received 210 million for a rocket of 17 tons, and now Musk launches for 90 million a rocket of 22,8 tons for the Pentagon.
For the Pentagon came a price collapse. And so in the domestic market SpaceX does not compete with Proton, but competes with ULA with their horse prices. That's the whole price difference.

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

1) Sintin and Naphthyl for the Unions and they are the same age as RP-1 both.

Naphthyl is a domestic RG-1 fuel. Analogue of the American RP-1. Its use will be on Vostochny for all carriers. In the meantime, they use T-1 kerosene. Cintin was used in U2, now it is no longer.

Quote: BlackMokona

2) A huge number of them, read about MLM. And direct, if here they lie continuously, then what is there to expect?

About MLM? Where? Tests go along it, depending on the results of these tests and for a variety of other reasons, the dates may be shifted. As everyone does, they will launch.

Quote: BlackMokona

3) The fact that before the ULA received 210 million for a rocket of 17 tons, and now Musk launches for 90 million a rocket of 22,8 tons for the Pentagon.
For the Pentagon came a price collapse. And so in the domestic market SpaceX does not compete with Proton, but competes with ULA with their horse prices. That's the whole price difference.

Those. for the Pentagon, 90 million. Clear. Yes, let them compete inside. They don’t be able to launch our military and civilian satellites with our missiles, even if our launch costs $ 30 million, they won’t give their own.

[Blackmokona]

1) the USSR, by the way, studied the transition and decided that the game is not worth the candle
http://free-inform-ru.1gb.ru/pepelaz/kerosene.htm

In the future, starting with the R-9 ICBM for the engines RD-111 (8D716) - the first stage, RD-461 (11D55) - the second stage, it was decided to switch to the rocket fuel kerosene RG-1 (naphthyl) specially developed for use in space )

Accordingly, for the third-stage engine of the Soyuz-U launch vehicle RD-0110 (11D55), as a descendant of RD-461, kerosene RG-1 is used.

In relation to the RD-107 and RD-108 liquid propellant rocket engines (modifications 11D511, 11D512) in 1970. work was underway to transfer engines of this type from T-1 fuel to RG-1 fuel. The possibility of switching to RG-1 was considered both in terms of the unification of fuels on various engines, and in terms of increasing the specific impulse of engine thrust. Tests have shown that when converting engines from fuel T-1 to RG-1, there is no increase in specific impulses of the draft of the combustion chambers. Further work on switching to RG-1 fuel was discontinued [10].

2) Displace again and again. Let me remind you that according to the initial plans, in 2007, MLM was supposed to be part of the ISS. And yes, at the time of the initial plans, the module was in hardware, it was only necessary to redo it a bit.
3) They may, the Pentagon has banned for itself. That's just the Pentagon has never used our missiles. Therefore, so hold the trend blundered

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

1) the USSR, by the way, studied the transition and decided that the game is not worth the candle

I wrote about this above. But naphthyl is less "dirty".

Quote: BlackMokona

2) Displace again and again. Let me remind you that according to the initial plans, in 2007 MLM was supposed to be part of the ISS.

In 2007, MLM just started to do. Prior to this, there was no money at all for this. Made in 2013. But the launch was delayed for well-known reasons - blockages in tanks and fuel lines. We were able to start it on a new one only in 2017. Now he is again ready for the final tests before sending to the spaceport.

Quote: BlackMokona

And yes, at the time of the initial plans, the module was in hardware, it was only necessary to redo it a bit.

In the iron was an empty iron case from FGB-2. Which radically had to be redone.

Quote: BlackMokona

3) They may, the Pentagon has banned for itself. That's just the Pentagon has never used our missiles. Therefore, so hold the trend blundered

Since 2023, a ban has been introduced on any launches of satellites with American components by our missiles. So we will launch our own "turnkey".

[Blackmokona]

1) Slightly again. There, the whole point is only in the unification of fuel.
2) It has already been some year in the final tests before sending it to the spaceport, a little news.
3) No, only on launches in the interests of the Pentagon. Which never ordered launches from us

[slipped]

Quote: BlackMokona

1) Slightly again. There, the whole point is only in the unification of fuel.

Sure. RD-107A / 108A at Soyuz-2 was already burned with naphthyl. The remaining engines there are for promising missiles - RD-190 and RD-171MV.

Quote: BlackMokona

2) It has already been some year in the final tests before sending it to the spaceport, a little news.

It was once in 2013. Just then, tests at the RKK revealed pollution. After that, the module was returned to the manufacturer and until 2017 no work with it not carried out, since the TsiH was experiencing financial problems. The final tests of the module began this year. On June 17, the leak tests of the module body and docking units were completed. MLM Nauka is planned to be sent to the Baikonur cosmodrome next month.

Quote: BlackMokona

3) No, only on launches in the interests of the Pentagon. Which never ordered launches from us

I explain again - customers who have their own American-made satellites cannot or do not dare to enter into new contracts with Russia for the above reason. Only those whose satellites are made in Airbus or in Russia enter into contracts.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: Vol4ara

Which of the missile mask from the last century? They began to develop Falcon Heavy in 2013 and launched it in 2018, 5 years on everything about everything, the heaviest and load-bearing rocket in the world

Falcon Heavy - modular design - typical engines and slightly modified acceleration modules, but in general the design is based on the previous Falcon (Falcon Heavy consists of a reinforced modification of the first Falcon 9 stage as a central unit (first stage), two additional first Falcon 9 stages as side accelerators (the so-called "zero stage") and the second stage). So to master the production technology of a reinforced central part in 5 years is quite normal (neither fast nor slow).
Add time for the development of the Flacon of the ninth - that will turn out 13-16 years for the development of technology.

This is a simple approach and, on the whole, an optimal approach, to assemble from three almost standard mastered light rockets, one heavy one (only the central module is significantly modified - dimensions along the length and greater load - additional frames for attaching the side modules, which means a significant recount of structural forces, shell thicknesses, boost pressure, etc.).

The ninth Falcon design is an innovative engine only, generally ordinary and open cycle (without afterburning) with a low pressure in the compressor station (2.5 times lower than that of the RD-191) but at the same time a rather high specific impulse, it has excellent weight perfection: thrust ratio 150 Merlin 1D and 89 for RD-191.

To create a comparable draft at sea level - for one RD-191 (1x196 ton-force), you need three pcs of Merlin 1D (3x66,6 ton-force = 199,8 ton-force). And at the same time, the weighted perfection of the American engine is no longer so striking: 1x2200 kg RD-191 and 3x489kg = 1467 kg Merlin 1D -
2200-1467 = 733 kg the difference is as much as one and a half Falcon engines!
But the specific impulse of RD-191 will save one and a half tons of fuel (more efficient use of fuel combustion) in the active area and it is difficult to estimate that it is better to save 1.5 tons in the final acceleration section or 733 kg or additional = 1,49x66,6tf = 99,68, XNUMX tf engine thrust at sea level.
Excessive thrust is not always necessary - especially during manned launches, in order to meet the permissible overload of "soft cargo" in 3G.
The engine will have to be throttled in the active area.

On the other hand, the low pressure in the KS of the American engine makes it easier and cheaper to manufacture - TNA is several times cheaper (it is not necessary to overcome the increased pressure in the KS to push the fuel through the jacket to cool the KS and nozzles, therefore, the Merlin 1D cooling jacket is much easier.
On the other hand, in order to get comparable traction, you need to put 3 merlin to one RD-191 in the ratio.

In general, you need to look at the price and resource of each of the engines. Here I run out of well-known figures to calculate the economy :) which approach is better
That reduced everything to a plate to one dimension characteristic of both engines.

[Blackmokona]

Well, the resource RD-191 does not know how to fly one flight; rockets with it do not know how to return, Marilyn pulls up to 100 full cycles.
Marilyn's price is $ 1 million. Now they say cheaper, but estimates differ.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

It's not so simple - you can make an RD-191 returnable, it is suitable for several starts with a partial replacement of the membrane reinforcement (membrane valves are cut with special pyrotechnic knives at start-up), possibly with the replacement of individual elements of the TNA, restoration of refractory coatings in the critical section of the nozzle, replacing nozzles, etc. - I don’t have enough knowledge of the concrete design of the RD-191 to draw conclusions about the durability of structural elements, but I think the margin of safety and resource can be used against the stated one for much longer.

But the Americans for half a year restore the engine Merlin D for subsequent use - i.e. it is conditionally reusable - of course, the specification of the replacement parts is not disclosed, the number of human hours for the bulkhead is also. It is difficult to judge the cost of this approach.

Yes - in the future, Space-X is striving for restarting within a week - they accordingly develop statistics on failures and the use of reusable elements in the engine.
It is not a fact that it is cost-effective - to change cheaper disposable parts (conditionally again disposable - maybe the critical section of the nozzle and 3-5 starts will serve) to more expensive ones that will serve 15-40 starts.
It is not a fact that the cost of reusable items will be cost-effective - but overall, the way is right.
I wonder how the process will end - I believe that it is most likely a compromise.
Since the pipeline system can be used repeatedly with periodic monitoring, TNA can be periodically sorted, membrane equipment replaced, reusable, nozzles and critical section - I doubt that it will last more than 5 starts, to make such loaded elements with a large resource - yes they are already more expensive than gold by weight :)

I suspect there will be a compromise - so it is quite achievable on our engines at low cost, leading to optimal reusability of individual components and elements of the rocket engine.

Moreover, the method of returning the steps, chosen by our engineers, with a wing and landing on the strip, it is more flexible in terms of applicability, more expensive in infrastructure, but in mass perfection, not inferior to the vertical landing scheme chosen by the Mask engineers.

[Blackmokona]

Marlins do not undergo any work to replace parts and other things, this was disclosed.
No half a year is also needed, for example, they were burned once for a full cycle multiple times, like they burned 7 or 9 times in a row. I don’t remember exactly. And launches of one stage were more often than 6 months.
And it is difficult to make the RD-191 returnable, for this you need a special rocket and when it will not be known.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: BlackMokona

Marlins do not undergo any work to replace parts and other things, this was disclosed.

Who was present? :))
You can talk a lot of things.
However, SpaceX first re-launched the Falcon 9 rocket stage in 2017.
The interval between starts is about 6 months (time for complete disassembly, inspection and reassembly) - inspection implies full non-destructive testing (X-ray for critical assemblies, ultrasound for less critical).

Then Elon Musk wrote - the next stage, restarting within 24 hours.
This is a very bold statement.
They even promised a 10% discount to customers for starting at a reused stage ...
Do you want to risk the cost of the payload, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions, to save 10% from 62 million per launch? I doubt the commercial adequacy of such a proposal.

In addition, Musk promises a lot:

As Musk pointed out, Falcon 9 steps are planned to be used up to 10 times. After maintenance of these elements, they can be used up to 100 times

The difference of 10 and 40 times is not enough.
RD-191 has a large safety margin, respectively, in terms of resource, to be reusable - this is a completely solvable task for engine operators.

I believe now that one RD-191 replaces 3 Merlin D, it has excellent prospects for mass production.

[Blackmokona]

1) At the moment, all 100% of the launched B \ U missiles have successfully completed their mission.
36 B \ U rockets successfully delivered cargo into space.
2) The problem is not only in the engines, there is a lot of need for it.

Look at the price of RD-191

That is, the cost of restoration is from 50 to 30% of the price of a new carrier - so far is a bit much (and certainly does not pull on:

Significantly less than 50% is from 50% to 30% here? Moreover, it was about the very first B \ U start said. When naturally checked to the maximum. Recently there was a launch when there was even no regular burning, which is mandatory for all new Falcon-9

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: BlackMokona

No half a year is also needed, for example, they were burned once for a full cycle multiple times, like they burned 7 or 9 times in a row. I don’t remember exactly. And launches of one stage were more often than 6 months.

RD-191 was also tested for several launches - successfully.
However, tests on the stand and ascent into the stratosphere + aerodynamic descent + subsequent landing with overloads are far from ideal conditions on the stand :))

4 months interservice period + delivery to the bulkhead and return transportation to the launch pad.

Yes, and for the price so far:

SpaceX President Gwynn Shotwell, speaking at the 33rd Space Symposium, did not announce the exact numbers. Nevertheless, it became clear the ratio of the cost of the new first stage and the cost of repair work on its preparation for restarting.

The renovation costs were "significantly less than half the cost of the new first stage," Shotwell said.

That is, the cost of restoration is from 50 to 30% of the price of a new carrier - so far is a bit much (and certainly does not pull on:

Quote: BlackMokona

Marlins do not undergo any work on replacement parts and other

.
Therefore, the ninth Falcon - while conditionally reusable media.

Quote: BlackMokona

And it is difficult to make the RD-191 returnable, for this you need a special rocket and when it will not be known.

This is narrow-minded reasoning - to make a rocket easier than a good engine - in our country there are more than a dozen missile design bureaus with experience in designing large-sized missiles, they will make a flight model of a multi-gravity rocket in 6-7 years, there would be funding and competent competition.

[Whirlwind]

We must also consider the breadth of launch ...
Run a kilogram of PN, as they have, we will not succeed.
Other things being equal they have a handicap (correct) 500 kg. Mon
Hence, costs and prices, respectively.

[Grazdanin]

Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

[Fungus]

Private formally. Mask company is a branch of NASA.

[Jack O'Neill]

Roscosmos is a branch of MMM.

[doubovitski]

Quote: Grazdanin

Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

Do not write stupidity. Compares the work of a healthy, whole. not a ruined country with the stumps of another. What is this ingenious and unknown known to this rogue? We do not have the dough, not until then. You can live without success in space. He is not running, we stopped.

[syndicalist]

Quote: doubovitski

He is not running, we stopped.

I do not agree. We are running too. But in the opposite direction. Capitalism has already slipped, now in feudalism. The next stop is slavery.

[Whirlwind]

For your information ... After the defeat of the USSR in the ХV of 1945-1991, among other things, Russia pays the USA at least 1 greens a day, and that is 000 billion dollars a year!
Here you have the economy of all of Russia on its knees, and Roscosmos on half-bent, and the Inflated Mask, including our tribute, in all its glory ...
"Woe to the vanquished ..."

[pereselenec]

Quote: Whirlwind

Russia on DAY pays the United States a minimum of 1 greens and that 000 billion dollars a year!

Why is Putin doing this?

[Roman1970_1]

Not Russian, Soviet

[kapitan281271]

Quote: Grazdanin

Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

Well, do you somehow think that write, it is as private as a bullet from shit

[MMX]

Quote: Grazdanin

Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos. This is just one aspect.
Questions?

[Grazdanin]

Come on, Roscosmos in 2018 about $ 3 billion, SpaceX earned $ 2 billion. Questions?

[MMX]

Quote: Grazdanin

Come on, Roscosmos in 2018 about $ 3 billion, SpaceX earned $ 2 billion. Questions?

Why do I need information how much he earned? I need a budget amount.
Well, "budget". Well, you know that word?
Read. Will come. Then check it out.

[Grazdanin]

This state-owned corporation lives on budgets, private traders live on earned money. They have no task to master the budget for a year, they have to give a result and earn money. The American company created the first version of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo space ship for $ 0,4 billion, Russia spent more than $ 4 billion on the Angara rocket alone.

[MMX]

Quote: Grazdanin

This state-owned corporation lives on budgets, private traders live on earned money. They have no task to master the budget for a year, they have to give a result and earn money. The American company created the first version of the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo space ship for $ 0,4 billion, Russia spent more than $ 4 billion on the Angara rocket alone.

Once again: do you understand the word "budget"?

I repeat the initial question - what is the budget for a) Space X and b) Roscosmos?

P.S. Small educational program - the budget has no restrictions on the form of ownership.

[Grazdanin]

Then continue the educational program and what is the budget of Spacex?

[MMX]

Quote: Grazdanin

Then continue the educational program and what is the budget of Spacex?

So you don’t know the answer?
Strange, you know the costs (is it?). You know the income (is it?). But you can’t voice the budget.

You see, a simple question, but it has baffled you ...

[Grazdanin]

Quote: MMX

For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos.

So it’s you who make unsubstantiated statements, I brought my comparisons, so you bring your own. Or another blablabla without numbers?

[MMX]

I did not make any unfounded accusations and never do. This is the first.
Second, I just asked a question about comparing the budgets of the two organizations. You could not answer him. But you try to compare them with a serious expression on your face.
So start with small (or large). The topic is about money? About the money. Well, compare budgets to start with, and then everything else can be in order.

[Grazdanin]

Clear. Another balabol, if you do not like my numbers, imagine yours. Until then.

[MMX]

The transition to the individual means that there are no arguments.
You could not answer the question. Fact.
I will answer for you (to my own question) and I will not give information. Take the trouble yourself.

[Whirlwind]

Answers .. After the defeat of the USSR in the ХV of 1945-1991, among other things, Russia pays the USA at least 1 greens a day, and that is 000 billion dollars a year!
Here you have the economy of all of Russia on its knees, and Roscosmos on half-bent, and the Inflated Mask, including our tribute, in all its glory ...
"Woe to the vanquished ..."

[pereselenec]

Quote: MMX

For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos. This is just one aspect.
Questions?

And you can also compare the number of employees of Roskosmos (189) and Space X (500). It turns out one engineer Mask is more effective than 8000 Petrovich Rogozin.

[MMX]

Quote: pereselenec

Quote: MMX

For example, let's compare the budget of a "private company" and the budget of Roscosmos. This is just one aspect.
Questions?

And you can also compare the number of employees of Roskosmos (189) and Space X (500). It turns out one engineer Mask is more effective than 8000 Petrovich Rogozin.

Compare the whole industry and a single company, and then conclude that more people work in the industry - a mind-blowing thing

[pereselenec]

Quote: Grazdanin

Do you know what is the saddest thing? You compare the successes of the entire Russian space program with one private company.

If we compare companies with companies, then it will become even sadder:

The capitalization of the national treasure of Gazprom’s supreme power as of June 26.06.2020, 65 is $ 285.

The capitalization of the American company producing series for the Netflix cattle on 26.06.2020/195/009 equals $ 085.

[MMX]

And that the exam has already ended? Then I watch a lot of financial professionals appeared on the network

[pereselenec]

Quote: MMX

And that the exam has already ended? Then I watch a lot of financial professionals appeared on the network

Essentially have something to say?
And then specialists from the generation with the "best in the world" education, who charged cans of water from Kashpirovsky, are not much better than specialists of the USE generation.

[MMX]

Well, it's better. And strong. Vaughn Israel has built almost all of its "high-tech" for the generation of "the world's best education". Don't complain.
And USE experts look at the capitalization of companies from various industries

[pereselenec]

Quote: MMX

And USE experts look at the capitalization of companies from various industries

Look at the capitalization of companies is much more informative than looking at a photo of Rogozin

[MMX]

Well, if for you these are phenomena of the same order, then please

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Bulls.

In addition, missiles are not a shoe; you can’t quickly cook them up.

Remind me how many years have passed from the issuance of Korolev TK on ICBMs to the launch of the first satellite? The country, I recall, lay in ruins and terrible poverty after the war.
How many years was the American Super-Saturn-5 created?
Moreover, it was about creating something that no one had done before, and it was not clear whether such machines could be created in principle.
And here, excuse me, having behind the decades of production of LVs for 25 years to bring just a new family of carriers in which there is nothing radically new in comparison with the previous ones.

[Whirlwind]

If at the airfield from which you fly and to which you will need to return, there is a mess, where will you "radically" fly without putting in proper order ..?!

[Sklendarka]

Quote: Bulls.

Quote: Grazdanin

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

With the shoes you are wrong, but the galoshes are another matter, chick and, ... space maps are tucked into the planets ... ''

[Doliva63]

Quote: Bulls.

Quote: Grazdanin

No. This means that the rocket is outdated, created according to the concept of the end of the last century, schemes of different decades are used.

Musk launched a rocket from the last century. So there were full pants in the world of joy. Almost know-how! And here "Angara" has only two decades in development. Besides, rockets are not a shoe, you can't cook them quickly.

So Proton is a shoe? It was "concocted" in 7 years.

[Letun]

Quote: Bulls.

In addition, missiles are not a shoe; you can’t quickly cook them up.

Yes Yes. 1945 years passed from the end of the War in 1961 to 16. And during this time, Korolev from scratch, without any previous experience, without any computers, launched a man into space. I repeat, 16 years old. "And here Angara has only two decades in development." Justify thieves and mediocrity further.

[doubovitski]

Quote: Grazdanin

Quote: Mountain Shooter

compares with the newly mastered ... but is it possible?

This newly mastered 25 years as.

I would like to say (but I will not) that in order to write stupidity, a lot of mind is not necessary. For the stupid and stupid, the cost of any product, with any method of production, and regardless of the country, is considered the sum of the costs of manufacturing, designing, accrual of profits and taxes.
If you have legislation that cuts you when making a profit from above, say 7%, you won’t start to wind up your desires. If you produce three to five products, then the design costs are laid out for these three to five products. If five hundred, then five hundred. If you work in a monopolist, then your price will look different than if a dozen competitors forge iron next to you. If the state has the ability to print loot without worrying about inflation, dumping all the trouble on their vassals, and the state. which, while it has the ability to collect the budget from the crumbs of production, therefore, the taxes here are completely different, if the structure of the economy in one country is such that the manufacturer is building only a factory for something, and the other state is building both a factory and a city for all production participants, then .. ... It is up to you to decide which country to live in. Just take into account not the external side of this being, but everything in the complex. And then do not be offended.

[Kalmar]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Let the amount taken ...

For quantity, demand is needed, for demand - a competitive price tag, and with it, apparently, it does not add up yet. Perhaps the first time "Angara" will have to start at a loss.

[Jurkovs]

Quote: Kalmar

For quantity, demand is needed, for demand

Demand needs insurance. And no company will insure launch, unless the rocket proves certain reliability statistics. And on what to build statistics if there are no domestic payloads. Not on mass-dimensional models? Although apparently along this path and went.

[doubovitski]

Quote: Jurkovs

Quote: Kalmar

For quantity, demand is needed, for demand

Demand needs insurance. And no company will insure launch, unless the rocket proves certain reliability statistics. And on what to build statistics if there are no domestic payloads. Not on mass-dimensional models? Although apparently along this path and went.

Do you consider the possibilities of an insurance PRIVATE company higher than the capabilities of a STATE insurance company? Can Russia not bear the costs and guarantees of cargo insurance? And, did she never do this? You, sitting, stepped on the floor of your coat, and try to get up. There is no way out of this situation. No one, no where, no when, if the regulator does not intervene, the STATE. Your rebus of those who are trying to decide what came before is an egg or a chicken.

[Mikhail m]

Quote: doubovitski

Can Russia not bear the costs and guarantees of cargo insurance?

I can’t understand why the state pays insurance companies. Indeed, in the end, even taking into account losses, it will not be necessary to pay profit to the insurer. In the conditions of limited financial resources of a private company, insurance is justified, because, although it increases the cost of the final product, it avoids the risk of failure. But at the state level, I think it is unreasonable to feed insurers.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Mikhail M

I can’t understand why the state pays insurance companies

Because the state is bourgeois, in the case of Russia it is the dictatorship of the big bourgeoisie. And pursues a policy in the interests of this largest bourgeoisie, i.e. large business, including insurance.
Consider, for example, how health insurance or "concessional" loans work.

[Jurkovs]

Especially when it comes to conquering the market for international launches. And foreigners will be insured by their companies.

[halpat]

Quote: Kalmar

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Let the amount taken ...

For quantity, demand is needed, for demand - a competitive price tag, and with it, apparently, it does not add up yet. Perhaps the first time "Angara" will have to start at a loss.

To devalue the ruble 4 times and the price tag will be suitable for "foreign tourists". Cheaper than Proton was. Business

[mdsr]

Quote: Halpat

To devalue the ruble 4 times and the price tag will be suitable for "foreign tourists". Cheaper than Proton was. Business

Let it be cheaper. But the problem is that if someone уwill then be another withwill be. The cheaper cost of missiles for foreign customers due to the devaluation of the ruble will be paid for by the higher cost of all imported goods and services for Russian citizens.

[halpat]

Quote: mdsr

Quote: Halpat

To devalue the ruble 4 times and the price tag will be suitable for "foreign tourists". Cheaper than Proton was. Business

Let it be cheaper. But the problem is that if someone уwill then be another withwill be. The cheaper cost of missiles for foreign customers due to the devaluation of the ruble will be paid for by the higher cost of all imported goods and services for Russian citizens.

And what about import substitution?
Galoshes / boots do not? Cowards not to sew? Do not set up your planes?
And tourists abroad have nothing to do, coronaviruses of all sorts are brought.

[slipped]

Quote: Kalmar

and apparently doesn’t add to it yet.

4 000 000 000 rubles is ~ $ 57 million

[Roman123567]

Well, the "krantik" will be screwed.

In Russia over the past almost 30 years, nothing has ever become cheaper .. Never !!
I think the appetites there will only grow, and they will ask for more money ..

[Whirlwind]

[quoteIn Russia over the past almost 30 years, nothing has ever become cheaper .. Never !!] [/ quote]
RUPE ..!

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Whirlwind

RUPE ..!

But to the point!

[Civil]

Proton (UR-500 - Universal Rocket, Proton-K, Proton-M) - a heavy carrier rocket (LV) designed to launch automatic spacecraft into orbit of the Earth and further into outer space. It is capable of bringing loads of up to 3,3 tons into geostationary orbit (GSO). It was developed in 1961-1967 in the OKB-23 subdivision (now GKNPTs named after MV Khrunichev), which was part of OKB-52 V.N. Chelomey.

Developed by Soviet engineers during the "golden" time of Soviet cosmonautics.
Rogozin will still show the con artist Mask.

[Sklendarka]

Quote: Civil

Proton (UR-500 - Universal Rocket, Proton-K, Proton-M) - a heavy carrier rocket (LV) designed to launch automatic spacecraft into orbit of the Earth and further into outer space. It is capable of bringing loads of up to 3,3 tons into geostationary orbit (GSO). It was developed in 1961-1967 in the OKB-23 subdivision (now GKNPTs named after MV Khrunichev), which was part of OKB-52 V.N. Chelomey.

Developed by Soviet engineers during the "golden" time of Soviet cosmonautics.
Rogozin will still show the con artist Mask.

... your scam ???

[vadim dok]

He has already shown his Cantata and the design of the corporation building! He is! And you have a fraud Mask! It’s strange, gentlemen!

[Whirlwind]

Che, memory fails? Musk lives in the country of the victor in the twentieth .., and Ragozin and we, in the country of the vanquished ...

[Bykov.]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

For several decades, the manufactured rocket has been compared with the newly mastered ... and is it possible? ...

Of course you can. Especially if you have a single goal, it is a hoot and poke about cuts.
And it’s a no brainer that comparing the cost of the Angara with the Proton is not correct.

[Kalmar]

Quote: Bulls.

And it’s a no brainer that comparing the cost of the Angara with the Proton is not correct.

Can thought be developed for those who are not hedgehogs? Cost directly affects the cost of launch. And this cost is one of the most important factors on the basis of which a potential customer will choose a carrier for his payload. Obviously, ceteris paribus (reliability, launch location, weight / size restrictions, etc.), a cheaper option will be chosen.

[Avior]

It is unclear what justifies the more expensive rocket.
If the possibilities are the same, why could not Proton continue to be used.
For some reason, the article omitted this

[kpd]

It is justified in two words - scalability and ecology.

[Jurkovs]

Quote: kpd

scalability

Finally leave these tales of scalability. Even in the existing version, the central unit is not interchangeable with the sides. And if you're talking about scalability of payloads. So Angara-A3 is not and never will be. Even on the launch pad that is currently being built on Vostochny, the possibility of its launch is not provided. So the Angara rocket family is the most ambitious scam in our space program. As it began with deception in 1993, it continues to this day. Strictly according to Vrungel.

[kpd]

Not interchangeable at the finished block level? Or at the level of large assembly units?
How much do cabinet products differ there?

[slipped]

Quote: Jurkovs

So Angara-A3 is not and never will be.

There will be A1.2, A5M and A5B

[Kalmar]

Quote: Avior

why could not Proton continue to be used

Proton is usually criticized for using highly toxic fuel, which creates many problems. "Angara" runs on kerosene. Well, and its modernization potential, in theory, should be better: after all, it is newer. It is another matter that at such a cost it will be much more difficult to "sell" the Angara launches.

[Avior]

Now in front of our eyes there is a launch market.
And the cost of starting is at the forefront

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Kalmar

It is another matter that at such a cost it will be much more difficult to "sell" the Angara launches.

Well, nothing becomes cheaper, even a Mercedes is getting more expensive every year.

[donavi49]

In space, on the contrary, everything is getting cheaper. There, the French flew beautifully with Ariane. They gathered, were already preparing to occupy the heavy and geostationary markets, and then it turned out that 200 + million was very expensive and there were no orders. Either the Arabs will launch the satellite (and then they have already run away to the Mask), then the ESA will push the device (but this is to transfer money from one pocket to another). As a result, they are now sweating, they are making Arian6 for the last money from the eggplant and French banks, which will be about 100 million. True, there is also not encouraging, because new systems are being made all over the world, and for 100 million by the year 24 it will be possible to fly on Glen with a reuse, throwing twice as much as on Ariana.

[sanches-nk]

I also don’t understand the reasons for the replacement, if it performs the same functions, putting the same weight into orbit.

[Jurkovs]

In Russia there is not a single launch pad for Proton. And Kazakhstan demanded to ban launches since 2024. In short, one launch was all.

[Roman123567]

why not

And how to cut ??
Damn .. what country do you live in, people ..

[113262a]

HEPTIL !!! At the Kerosene Angara

[Sklendarka]

Quote: 113262

HEPTIL !!! At the Kerosene Angara

,, ... and if the vodka is not to be driven from sawdust, then ... ''

[Doliva63]

Quote: Avior

It is unclear what justifies the more expensive rocket.
If the possibilities are the same, why could not Proton continue to be used.
For some reason, the article omitted this

Because Proton is Soviet, probably For 30 years, the new government has been in power, and in space everything works from the old. This is wrong. And therefore, for any money, they will replace Proton with any crap that can take off the ground - you must leave the Soviet decisively!

[Samara_63]

While the head of Roscosmos will receive a design engineer a hundred times more and without having a mathematical education, we will have problems, the head of nasa in the USA will receive more than a design engineer for $ 200 in total

[Brancodd]

The head of Roscosmos has a salary 2 times lower than the salary of the editor of Echo of Moscow Venediktovna. The echo of Moscow is financed by Gazprom.

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Brancodd

The head of Roscosmos has a salary 2 times lower than the salary of the editor of Echo of Moscow Venediktovna.

As I hear about Venediktov, there immediately disappears appetite.

[Maks1995]

Cool! Medvedevsky Gazprom Venediktov pays 5 million per month officially?
Wah, how interesting.

Rogozinskaya is known - 6 salaries of experienced astronauts, somewhere 3-4 million total. Their Moscow office, they wrote, eats money, just like everyone else ...
With an echo, probably 2 times cooler?

[aglet]

"The head of Roscosmos has a salary that is 2 times less than the salary of the editor of Echo Moskvy Venediktovna. Financed by Echo of Moscow is carried out by Gazprom."
Do you offer to give Roskosmos to Gazprom?

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: aglet

Do you offer to give Roskosmos to Gazprom?

I propose to put on a suit on Benya and send SP 2 to finish building.

[aglet]

"I propose to put on a spacesuit on Benya and send SP 2 to finish building"
only with Dima. only there will be no sense from them, even in a spacesuit, even without a spacesuit. because there is a specific matter, and they are specialists in the colloquial genre. Bene can still be forgiven, but Dima does not

[aglet]

"a local museum of the languid Ossetian people!"
What do you dislike about the Ossetian people, the grandson of the heads of Soviet factories? he is no worse than the people whose representative you consider yourself to be. if you want to live with dignity, do not count on the dubious merits of your grandfather, work yourself, and earn yourself. Rogozin, by the way, was born in Moscow, and if I was in Ossetia, I don’t know

[Pavel73]

I have already said: Angara is an excellently completed diploma project of new Russian rocket launchers. Now we need to make a normal rocket.

[Fungus]

Look at the problems there too. And it's not about salaries. So you lay down again.

[Samara_63]

Ask Shvidak where 9 GPZ and where 4 GPZ ??? On the site of 4 GPPs there is a development of offices and T. Ts ... On the natural 9 GPPs devastation
The war will begin. An army from China will probably buy bearings.

[aglet]

that Petryaev E.D., whose photo you sent, has nothing to do with you, he is an honored man, military doctor, officer, writer, participant in the war. Until 1956 he served in the army

.
one must be more modest and more honest. It seems that you also came up with your heroic grandfather, are there too many inconsistencies in your descriptions, is there enough fantasy?

[aglet]

"And you can shove your modesty into your scoop puzzle. I have, I have a direct relationship.
Another bullshit in uniform has something to say on the watch "
son, behave yourself, you are now in the company of decent people, and not swineherds, with whom you constantly communicate.
I say again that the photo of the person that you sent under the guise of your grandfather has nothing to do with you or your accountant grandfather. if he was in Kuibyshev, it was only passing through. I cannot understand how the "watch" is connected with that. what do you have, have something ?. and you don't need to write here under beer or drugs, your expanded consciousness is poorly perceived non-verbally

[aglet]

"Another bullshit in uniform has something to say on the watch
ZIM of the Amur Flotilla? "
if the dial of a wristwatch says - Amur flotilla, this does not mean that this watch was officially used on the Amur flotilla. this suggests that this is a remake of recent years of release, uses this name for advertising. and about "shit in uniform", as you say, there are many of these, both former and acting, so tie a broomstick, puppy, it can end badly, up to reactive diarrhea

[aglet]

"My grandfather from the war was plan manager at ten large facilities, Zhigulevskaya HPP, Stankozavod, ZIM Pobeda watch factory, Samara Bearing "
The head of the plan is a very interesting position. but nothing that these objects were built at different times, in different places?
the machine tool plant began to produce machines in 1926, for example, and the Volga Hydroelectric Power Plant was commissioned in operation in 1955, and the rest of the winter-1923 enterprises, etc. I think your grandfather told you something wrong

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: aglet

The head of the plan is a very interesting position. but nothing that these objects were built at different times, in different places?

But in principle, everything listed in Kuibyshev was located, so it is quite logical.

[aglet]

but still, head of the plan, what is this position? and, Dneproges with Baikonur, he did not build? and the 100.000th machine tool in Kuibyshev was made in 1964. I have no doubt your grandfather lived in Kuibyshev in those years, and, in the war, too. but what relation did he have to all these industries? and the auditor has nothing to do with production. an auditor is an accountant, simply put

[aglet]

"The chief sanitary doctor, assholes in the USSR were told about equality and brotherhood without" economics ", saw in the film Brigade how a crane with sand falls? No? Well, don't talk about your rights, economic directors get the most today. How much does Miller and Gref? And I could not even privatize the Soviet Rolex because of the bandits. The Rolex brand is now estimated at $ 6,4 billion. "
- Is that what it was all about? Son, switch to soft drugs, and buy yourself, finally, a watch, you can even winters, there are Internet ones, even authentic ones

[lucul]

While the head of Roscosmos will receive a design engineer a hundred times more and without having a mathematical education, we will have problems, the head of nasa in the USA will receive more than a design engineer for $ 200 in total

I remember the scandal with Lehman Brothers and Fanny May in the USA in 2008. Then the state helped with $ 100 billion, and at the end of that year, top managers Fanny May wrote out bonuses of $ 100 million in bonuses (and this is from the money that helped the state) ...

[Doliva63]

Quote: Samara_63

While the head of Roscosmos will receive a design engineer a hundred times more and without having a mathematical education, we will have problems, the head of nasa in the USA will receive more than a design engineer for $ 200 in total

When salary comes first, no matter how much you pay, the result will be so-so. When he worked in science, our chief, an academician (excluding the head of Roscosmos), received only 10 times more than me, a modest senior technician of the group of ion-atomic collisions in gas, and even often worked with us "at the machine", could replace any, tk. perfectly knew the whole process and the responsibilities of everyone. They did not work for money, but for the thrill of the result. That adrenaline when WE DID IT! not measured by any money. So, in fact, everything in the Union was built by which we have lived until their time. But for the money.

[Whirlwind]

Stalin was not a mathematician, but he knew how to the main thing, to see through the cadres and arrange them with benefit for the state.

[Aleksandre]

The funny thing is: 30 years of capitalism, the hand of the market, effective managers .... but all this is still financed by the state, as in the USSR. Well, at least for the time being we are talking about those incomes whose income is necessary, and not, for example, for social programs.

[Grazdanin]

We have state capitalism, the United States private. We have large private companies on the fingers of the hand can be counted, in the US there are no state-owned companies from the word at all. We have 2% “shit”, they have the leaders of the country. Here is the result.

[nikvic46]

Previously, America’s goal was to degrease us in the arms race. We should not blindly follow America in space exploration. Many people already understand that the lunar program for several decades will be only a dream. And even landing on the moon will not reveal anything. Not to mention the calonization of Mars. To do this, much needs to be achieved here on Earth. These are robots that are capable of carrying out construction work. We can not resist the elements in many ways, but we dream of impossible dreams.

[Grazdanin]

Quote: nikvic46

several decades

For several years, within 5 years, they will definitely land. USA or China.

[Lord of the Sith]

Do not land.

[Vadim237]

The ship for flying to the moon is Orion SLS rocket finish new lunar spacesuits made left lander to do but I think there will be no problems with it - for 4 maximum 6 years they will make and fly.

[nikvic46]

Landing doesn’t mean transporting goods, and this is exactly what the lunar program aims at.

[Grazdanin]

There will be a need to do.
“NASA offers 35 thousand bucks for the design of toilets that will be used by participants in the lunar mission. The main requirement is that toilets must work under conditions of gravity of the moon. ”
This is the most important sign of a serious program.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: nikvic46

Not to mention the colonization of Mars.

Well, why is there progress, even a movie was shot about Mars’s calonization a couple of years ago, there a man cultivated kartohu in his poop, Mars calonized

[Roman123567]

Mankind should not care ..
After all, you don’t survive the eggs when you carry them in one basket ..))
It must be someone OVER us .. to worry about our survival !!

[mdsr]

Quote: vadimtt

We need both Mars and Europe. And to be sure, then at least one more star system to populate. This is what mankind should live for, and not for the sake of "consumerism".

You say terrible things, sir. Most people, including all the current leadership of the country and the masters of Russia, think in completely different categories, those described by the last word in your comment. Our society has not yet evolved to such a level. What can I say if they gave their homeland to be torn for the sake of chewing gum with jeans and Coca-Cola with a hamburger. The real level of development of most of our citizens is the serfdom, which they constantly prove. I also used to think that our television deliberately fools people. And then I realized that this is a request of society itself. In fact, this is a terrible reality. The most talented and smart part of the citizens of our country are well aware of this and, therefore, continue to leave every year. I understand them perfectly. I myself also really want to arrange the life of my children in Europe. It is not comfortable and not right to live with people who have psychology two centuries ago.

[paco.soto]

. I understand them perfectly. I myself also really want to arrange the life of my children in Europe. It is not comfortable and not right to live with people who have psychology two centuries ago. ©
A neutral opinion, without an idiological context: there are many compatriots living around the world for a long time and this is not so far - I remembered the distances from the places of garrisons in the USSR, so it was much closer just in case to smile.

[Whirlwind]

Let me ask you, are these most talented ones leaving for Mars? And if not to Mars, then how smart are they ..?

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: nikvic46

the colonization of Mars

"Calonization" - how's that? Throwing containers of shit?

[rocket757]

The proton, of course, is a poisonous rocket and the green ones about it are rustling for good reason ... but, you have to be able to do this for as much as the price of a new rocket.

[Leon68]

The cost of the hangar takes into account the transfer and establishment of production in Omsk. And this is the renewal of production assets, which have not been updated since the time of the Union.

[rocket757]

No problem. Change, repair, upgrade production is REQUIRED!
It is clear that small series missiles, or the first ones, will be very expensive!
It always has been, I remember in the USSR, when they released a new product, it cost 6 million scars. When they did the final, 400 thousand of the same scars ... this is natural.
It’s just that we have already eaten up, if it’s very expensive, that means they’re sawing, sawing .... this is from distrust, which did not arise from scratch ... the boom is hoping that everything will go in the future, it is NECESSARY to do it anyway!

[Pavel73]

At first they killed the Proton, who really flew and earned money. Now they’ll deal with reducing the cost of the Angara ... Don’t make it cheaper than Proton! And do not even bring it closer in value. The first stage of the Proton is one missile unit. The first step of the Hangar - FIVE missile blocks! So they arrived. The hangar is unacceptably complex and expensive for its carrying capacity. It’s even excusable to some lunar heavyweight. But not the workhorse that Proton was, and which the Hangar will never become. Only Soyuz-5 with a hydrogen accelerator can save the situation, and in the future, with the second stage. Well, it’s good that they began to speak the bitter truth. Maybe not everything is lost yet?

[Whirlwind]

And you do not confuse anything ..?
"Angara" - a family of Russian launch vehicles (LV) with oxygen-kerosene engines, which includes carriers from light to heavy classes - in the range of load capacities from 3,5 ("Angara-1.2") to 38 ("Angara-A5V" )

[Pavel73]

Alas, I am not confused. The concept of a modular rocket capable of replacing all domestic carriers "from 3,5 to 38 tons" failed miserably. The developer of "Angara", instead of competing with foreign missile engineers, tried to kill his own. Result - Angara costs a lot of money, without hydrogen it cannot replace the Proton, and it cannot even get a bast shoe up to Falcon.

[Fungus]

A new rocket will not hurt. So great.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Fungus

A new rocket will not hurt. So great.

For 7 lard? .... Farewell to the commercial space, now we will fly not at the expense of the bourgeois, but at the expense of pensioners and state employees

[Fungus]

Stop whining

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Fungus

Stop whining

If this helps, then stop it. It just does not help

[zwlad]

The Proton-M launch vehicle is planned to be completely decommissioned by 2025.

Strongly doubt it, given the cost of replacing the Angara.
If they don’t specifically kill the production of Protons, he will fly another 15-20 years.

[Lord of the Sith]

Anyway, whatever one may say, the Angara is more promising. If only because the engines are not on toxic fuel, like the old days of Proton, dimethylhydrazine and diazotetraoxide, these are terrible poisons.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Anyway, whatever one may say, the Angara is more promising. If only because the engines are not on toxic fuel, like the old days of Proton, dimethylhydrazine and diazotetraoxide, these are terrible poisons.

Something you do not rush to switch to electric cars

[Lord of the Sith]

Because electric cars are not very promising, so that there managers of Tesla and other companies would not cover the citizens.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

Because electric cars are not very promising, so that there managers of Tesla and other companies would not cover the citizens.

But eco-friendly, so change from non-eco-friendly, but convenient and functional gasoline to electric. This is similar to proton

[Lord of the Sith]

These types of "green" electric vehicles are not made from green factories at all, and not from sustainable materials at all.
So these electric cars are now bullshit for geeks.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Lord of the Sith

These types of "green" electric vehicles are not made from green factories at all, and not from sustainable materials at all.
So these electric cars are now bullshit for geeks.

So are gasoline too. Only some burn fuel and release a lot of things into the environment, while others do not

[aglet]

"So are gasoline ones. Only some burn fuel and throw a lot of things into the external environment, while others do not."
and how much was thrown out during their production? and electricity is mainly generated at the CHP. and disposal? all this chemistry? it is still unknown what is more environmentally friendly, the data are completely different, but the role of electric cars is greatly overestimated

[Lord of the Sith]

All resource extraction and production in order to build an "ecological conditional shnyaga" is far from ecological.
For conventional "non-ecological" too. All this "environmental friendliness", stupid PR.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Vol4ara

Something you do not rush to switch to electric cars

And you imagine a car on UDMG. Try to refuel it from a canister without chemical protection. Breathe in the appropriate exhaust.

[Vol4ara]

Quote: Narak-zempo

Quote: Vol4ara

Something you do not rush to switch to electric cars

And you imagine a car on UDMG. Try to refuel it from a canister without chemical protection. Breathe in the appropriate exhaust.

What for? It’s enough gasoline or solariums, living along the road is not at all useful, so we switch from gasoline to electric.

[Narak-zempo]

Quote: Vol4ara

What for? It’s enough gasoline or solariums, living along the road is not at all useful, so we switch from gasoline to electric.

In general, I am for restricting personal vehicles - no matter what traction it is on.

[Jurkovs]

I didn’t. She was created like that. Only the developers were in no hurry to announce this.

[Prisoner]

To sprinkle the "sawing beetles" with dust, you see, prices would have returned to normal.

[Flurry]

If the Angara begins to fly, the cost will fall to the price of the same Proton (almost). And in order to start, we need orders from the state, in no other way.
For some reason, everyone forgot that the R&D and preparation of Proton production were paid for by the USSR budget, and those costs have long been written off.

[Blackmokona]

It will not fall, the news says that the target price is 1,5x from Proton

[Vol4ara]

Quote: BlackMokona

It will not fall, the news says that the target price is 1,5x from Proton

But we know which way prices are changing ...

[PROXOR]

I have a question. What is the PN for Proton and Anagara. What is the reason for changing Proton to Angara?

[donavi49]

Proton heptile smokehouse. Now there is a global rejection of heptile smokehouses. Of the large ones, only China holds onto them and is not going to refuse.

[PROXOR]

Well, there are no questions, ecology is important of course, but the economy should also be there. We all did not move to Tesla. Although the electric power industry is clearly moving towards nuclear. Moreover, Russia has mastered and activated a new spent nuclear fuel reactor. And if I understood correctly - nuclear fuel now goes in a closed cycle.
Nevertheless, we all sit on gasoline-diesel cars.

[donavi49]

Now launches are possible only from Kazakhstan. It prohibits the launch of heptyl rockets at 1 stage.

After 25 years, the only country from which heptyl rockets will fly in the upper stage is China.

[slipped]

Quote: donavi49

Now launches are possible only from Kazakhstan. It prohibits the launch of heptyl rockets at 1 stage.

After 25 years, the only country from which heptyl rockets will fly in the upper stage is China.

They forgot about Rokot-M.

[donavi49]

The roar is not a space rocket, but a package of modifications for the disposal of ICBMs by the space launch method .

And there are problems there, the old Roar with the Ukrainian modernization kit is already all. New ones need to be allocated 6-7 billion rubles, for the development, production and modernization + they want to modernize Plesetsk. Then, in theory, they can launch the remaining ICBMs up to 30-40 in this way.

[slipped]

Quote: donavi49

The roar is not a space rocket, but a package of modifications for the disposal of ICBMs by the space launch method .

STA !?

You will also say that the Vostok ILV is a "package of modifications for the disposal of R7 ICBMs by means of space launch."

Rokot is a space rocket created on the basis of conversion from the UR 100 UTTKh rocket with a new Briz-KM booster.

Quote: donavi49

And there are problems there, the old Roar with the Ukrainian modernization kit is already all. New ones need to be allocated 6-7 billion rubles, for the development, production and modernization + they want to modernize Plesetsk. Then, in theory, they can launch the remaining ICBMs up to 30-40 in this way.

There are no problems there. Rokot and Rokot-M have a difference in RB. The contract for the production of RB "Briz-KM-2" has already been signed.

[alexey1213]

It will never be cheaper than Proton. The metal for the manufacture of engines on the Angara is more expensive. And the fight against high cost has already begun. At KBHA, the RD-191 engines were instructed to cut standards by 50% for workers.

[Flurry]

But this is wrecking! Soon migrants will collect it for that kind of money.

[slipped]

Quote: alexey1213

At KBKHA, RD-191 engines were instructed to cut standards by 50% for workers.

RD-191 assembles Proton PM.

[alexey1213]

The combustion chamber is made by the KBKhA former VMZ .A collects them into the Energomash engine. ProtonPM makes fuel pumps.

[slipped]

And those. KBHA collects not the RD-191, but the COP for them. I put it wrong - serial RD-191 will be assembled at Proton PM. And now yes - six TNAs within the pilot production should deliver to Energomash, the first one has left. So what about the norms cut off by 50%?

[alexey1213]

If the shop manager is lying, then I'm lying

[slipped]

Quote: alexey1213

If the shop manager is lying, then I'm lying

and who is our shop manager? and about the rules you didn’t say anything .... said A say B

[Ilya098]

Piece production is always more expensive than serial production, this is what Marx withdrew in his Capital. A proton cannot be launched from the territory of the Russian Federation (due to heptyl). And Angara’s fuel is environmentally friendly, and this is a step forward. We wish good luck and patience to Roskosmos

[1536]

It would be surprising if the new rocket was cheaper than the old one. New technologies, new technical conditions of production, new remuneration for engineering and technical workers, all this does not make the cost of the product cheaper, but makes it more expensive. And the theft must end with a tight deadline for the rocket. If you don't, return everything you spent to the state budget or work for free until you return it. So many want, who today writes about "cuts", "appetites", etc.?

[donavi49]

The current trend in rocket science is cheaper, even cheaper, cheaper than possible.

New technologies? What is new technology ??? Angara superconservative rocket on the way. Oxygen-Kerosene, 3 steps and classic production. There are up to ten such missiles in operation, and even families.

New technologies are supercooled fuel components, this is methane + engine return = theoretical up to 100 flights with minimal inter-flight maintenance, this is the maximum automation of production due to this, reducing the risk of defect, lowering production costs (robots are cheaper in the future than qualified personnel), the opportunity flexible changes and upgrades. By the way, the guys defended the project and they received money, they even contracted Iridium:
Relativity, which is developing almost entirely 3D printed rockets, has signed it fifth customer - launching replacement satellites for iridium.

The company also now has an agreement with the Air Force to build a new launchpad at Vandenberg:

Angara has none of this. Moreover, conceptually, the Angara was made during the era of the total dominance of Roscosmos in the launch market. The main competitors for 5ki were Arian and Delta4 - both missiles have now lost their market launches. In recent years, Delta has been flying either scientific or spies of all kinds, while Arian has been finishing off old orders, and business is leaving him. And this is with state lobbyism, loans from French banks and without any sanctions. The same Arabs left Arians. Following the Indians will leave in their start-up program. SES also left there were 1 or 2 contracted outputs. Arian himself makes a new rocket half the price (100 million), under the current market.

[Flurry]

All this has already been- and reusable cryogenic fuel engines, and rescued (theoretically) blocks, and hypothermia. Methane does not have a sharp advantage over kerosene, except that the TNA drive is sawn up for regasification.
New is exotic nozzles, detonation combustion, the first stage combined with the direct-flow system, etc.

[donavi49]

Well, you need a balance. That’s every methane / supercooled reuz, the maximum automation of production is the current objective maximum, with acceptable risks.

There are many promising areas. But the risks are no longer acceptable to the business. Some may allow it (the same Mask with a new project, again, if they do not master it, it will be great to throw them away in the classic 9ke and Heavy, but if a stainless barrel flies, it is a potentially new generation or even an era).

[MMX]

And how he breathed! How I breathed! A whole sheet dashed off about "high-tech" rocketry of the 21st century and breakthrough technologies.
And then a certain Rafale / Valery passing by laconically remarked - "all this has already happened."
Somewhat embarrassed donavi49 in response grunted

Well, I need a balance

and began to talk about how promising space technologies plow the expanses of the universe ...

[donavi49]

Well, a business needs a balance. Money cannot be raised if the degree of risk is sky-high. Therefore, all commercial missiles are more or less conservative. But with your chips. Someone makes methane. Someone planning a more economical return than the Mask. Someone is going to print rockets on printers, engines on printers and the share of human operations has been reduced to 10%. .

The next generation will not open it at once. However, the steps are taken. I just pointed out that Angara5 is the answer to the Arian5 and Delta4 rockets - which were the main competitors of Roscosmos during its dominance in the launch market, but today both Arian5 and Delta4 actually leave the market, losing competition to the new launch vehicles. Arian6 will be already half the price (they want to keep within 100 million). The Americans are making a new family of methane - the Volcano Centauri, in addition to the 100500 private traders, like the same Bezos and Glen.

[MMX]

I will express my opinion this way: to be a private astronautics is also a matter of time. But this process I see for myself is not so fleeting and more independent (if we talk about the private sphere).
In the meantime, everything is done at the expense of the state in the literal and figurative sense. And it looks like: with your money and your own efforts, we will create a private space and call it all "revolution in the history of cosmonautics."
It’s as soon as the private sector, through its own money and with its engineers, creates something effective (and, therefore, successful in the technical, technological and economic terms), then we can say that private space is a reality.

[donavi49]

What is private space?
Here's an example:
Türksat Satellite Communications and Cable TV Company - orders Turkish Aerospace Industries to make a satellite based on Eurostar architecture (from the airbase). The Turks assemble this satellite using European components and launch it on Falcon9. There is no government money or orders in production or withdrawal at all (well, TAI is a state-owned company that collected a satellite on a ready-made architecture).

Or Capella, a private California-based company of less than 100 people, enters the market for satellite imagery with a resolution of 50cm and radar mapping. They created their own small satellite with their own money and ordered the withdrawal of the private company RocketLab. Again, in this scheme there is money from private investors, bank loans, but there is no state money.

Or even closer, on July 4 a satellite flies from Canon, a public Japanese company. In the appendage, different trash from students.

[MMX]

Well then, they were many times ahead of Max and his vaunted Space X - because Ilon does not do satellites
But the means of launch into orbit. This is where the sphere of the origin of the conquest of space begins. You can have thousands of satellites ready and maybe even the best in the world. But if there are no rockets that will deliver them into space, all this is a pile of rubbish that has a distant relationship to space.

[aglet]

"New is exotic nozzles, detonation combustion, combined with co-current first stage, etc."
jet engines have reached their limit. further performance can result only from an increase in size, but even then, not for long. need a quality spurt

[Grazdanin]

Quote: donavi49

Arian and Delta4

The hangar was the answer to these missiles, and they themselves are already leaving the market. In such a situation, to complete the hangar top of stupidity.

[1536]

New technologies are new technologies. They begin at the level of computer-aided design, the creation of new composite materials, engines or their components, fuel, as well as the organization of production, where all this is done. And it ends with the systems of preparation for launch, flight control, return to Earth. Of course, the number of customers putting payload into orbit plays a huge role. And here is the problem.
Roscosmos, by the way, explained why Angara is more expensive, and also said that everything would be done to make it cheaper.

[betta]

In the Stalinist economy there was no concept of "profit", there was "necessary." Everything is simple, it is necessary, then we do it. We are introducing the Stalinist economy and at least we fly to other stars, there would be a desire.

[Whirlwind]

There were two Peter, do you have any ...?

[aglet]

"You hear a scoop, but I don't need Stalin. In my story there is Peter 1 and Vasily the Dark, enough"
hear you kuyak, who is asking you, grandson of an accountant?

[bar]

The newest Russian heavy-class launch vehicle, Angara-A5, turned out to be three times more expensive than the decommissioned Proton launch vehicle.

It is not surprising, considering that Proton worked on heptyl with diazot tetroxide, and Angara - on kerosene with cryogenic oxygen.

[slipped]

The news is generally NEVER. The fact that the first carriers will be expensive in testing was known before. Also known is the cost of launching already ordered carriers ~ $ 64 million apiece.

RIA once again hypanulo - hamsters blew up.

[CBR600]

I have not read the comments, I repent. An article about a new stage in our cosmonautics and, of course, a rise in price is inevitable. Excuses are appropriate. Hooray Angara !! They promise that the A5M will throw 27,5 tons on the NCO. It is scary to imagine. Sincerely cheers !!

[paco.soto]

Neutral opinion: the ruble exchange rate over the years is not included in the estimates of the carriers and (probably "useful" sanctions are also a rise in price)

[ont65]

The price is moderate. Given the additional options of a heavy Angara, in comparison with Proton, it will fit into the budget of Roscosmos. When changing benchmarks for operating requirements, you still have to sacrifice something. All Soviet equipment was tightly optimized in terms of costs, and Protons with the Unions are a clear example of this. That's interesting, the operation of the centenarian of the Union is the same because it is cheaper than the planned Union 5 with the Federation. But something is not heard about this project of criticism.

[ont65]

Strange, Musk for launching a manned Dragon (who hadn’t flown anything yet) tore off $ 0.5 billion from NASA and all hopped as one Ukrainians on the Maidan. About it! A cost-effective mission to deliver as many as two astronauts to the orbit of the ISS. And this is for a minute 8 pcs. Scary dear Angara A5. No logic.

[MMX]

Quote: ont65

Strange, Musk for launching a manned Dragon (who hadn’t flown anything yet) tore off $ 0.5 billion from NASA and all hopped as one Ukrainians on the Maidan. About it! A cost-effective mission to deliver as many as two astronauts to the orbit of the ISS. And this is for a minute 8 pcs. Scary dear Angara A5. No logic.

Scary things say. It’s not accepted here.
Ave, Musk!

[Vadim237]

Actually, 65 million.

[aglet]

"Oh, yes! A cost-effective mission of delivering as many as two astronauts to the ISS orbit."
well, actually 6. six astronauts

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

And where did you see here something about the price of the Eagle? Or is it supposed to be free?

[senima56]

Another 10-15 years will "master" - and it will become absolutely "golden"! Do you hear: "whack-whack"? This budget is "sawed"!

[strelokmira]

With the cost, okay, the main thing is that the launch pad should be assembled for it and calmly launched from the territory of the Russian Federation. As for the commercial launches, then Roskosmos is already everything, everyone who really could pay either created their space programs or go to use cheaper services. So now we need to proceed only from government subsidies, and there it seems there is no money to redesign Angora

[Whirlwind]

Dear, why are you running into a heavy one, Angara is a family of Russian launch vehicles with a kerosene oxygen engine, which includes light to heavy classes of carriers in the load range from 3,5 (Angara-1.2) ) to 38 ("Angara-A5V") ...

[aglet]

"India has over 1 billion population"
and the Volga flows into the Caspian Sea. do not drink before watching

[Andrey Ostroushko]

And sad people with a clown president, at the request of the IMF, will soon be tagged with Faberge so that they do not reproduce and ask for food, this will be your real change in the growth of Ukrainian demography. You would be envious in silence.

[lvov_aleksey]

Ukrainians do not forget pliz!

[lvov_aleksey]

I'm tired of reading the chat! I haven’t seen so much junk yet, there’s nothing to talk about !!!

[Vadim237]

A5 hangar for the military - everything else will be launched on the Irtysh.

[Whirlwind]

The Yenisei is on its way ...

[Andrey Ostroushko]

Did you understand what you wrote?

[Narak-zempo]

But while everyone is throwing slippers at Roskosmos, a private company in Krasnoyarsk is preparing to launch the Siberia launch vehicle, which will bring a ton to LEO. Few? So after all, the first "Falcon" in general took out only 420 kg. And most importantly, all this was done without billions of dollars in infusions from NASA, on its own. This is who will bite off Musk's market in favor of Russia. Here you have both cheapness (all your own!), And localization of production, and favorable conditions for poor customers.

[Evgeny Goncharov (smoogg)]

Quote: Bulls.

only two decades in development

It is hard to be a Russian patriot, but they are strong people, they can handle it.

[Aleksey60]

The cost of manufacturing the Proton-M rocket, according to data from the public procurement website for April this year, is 2,33 billion rubles

That is not correctly calculated.
- Manufacturing and delivery of the Proton-M launch vehicle for launching the Express-AMU4 spacecraft - 2 327 649 340,00 ₽.
- Manufacturing and delivery of the 14S75 head fairing for launching the Express-AMU4 spacecraft - 210 rubles.
Total: ₽ 2 537 698 200.
And the Russian Defense Ministry ordered four hangar-5 missiles for 18 billion rubles.
It turns out ... it turns out ..., two went to mind ..., it turns out 4,5 billion rubles apiece.
Who takes in bulk - that discount.

[Andrey Ostroushko]

in "Roskosmos" talk a lot too much.

[slipped]

Quote: Andrey Ostroushko

in "Roskosmos" talk a lot too much.

Well, today they "chatted" about a state contract for A5M, A5B and A5VM carriers with a recoverable first stage.